MINUTES For Bedford County Planning Commission February 1,2010 County Administration Building The Planning Commission held a meeting on Monday, February 1, 2010. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stephens, Stevick and Wilkerson were present. Newly appointed Commissioner Derrick Noell was also present. Commissioner Noell will replace District 6 Commissioner Hartman on February 2nd. County staff members present were Mr. Carl Boggess, County Attorney, Mrs. Mary Zirkle, Chief of Planning, Mr. Brad Robinson, Mr. Jordan Mitchell, Planners and Mrs. Patricia Robinson Planning/Zoning Technician. County Attorney Boggess, Parliamentarian called the meeting to order and determined a quorum was present to conduct business. Mr. Boggess also indicated this is the annual organizational meeting. Mr. Boggess opened the floor for nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Wilkerson nominated Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Fralick seconded the nomination. Commissioner Wilkerson made a motion to close the nominations. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stevick and Wilkerson voted in favor. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Mr. Boggess opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Wilkerson nominated Commissioner Stephens. Commissioner Fralick made a motion to close the nominations. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stevick and Wilkerson voted in favor. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Mr. Boggess opened the floor for nominations for Secretary. Commissioner Crockett nominated Mrs. Zirkle, Chief of Planning. Commissioner Wilkerson made a motion to close the nominations. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stevick and Wilkerson voted in favor. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Mr. Boggess asked for a motion to accept the inclement weather policy. Commissioner Crockett made a motion to accept the inclement weather policy. Commissioner Stevick seconded the motion. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stevick and Wilkerson voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The motion carried with a vote of 6-0. Mr. Boggess turned the meeting over to the new Chairman, Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Barnes asked for a motion to approve the 2010 meeting schedule. Commissioner Stevick made a motion to approve the 2010 meeting schedule. Commissioner Stephens seconded the motion. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stevick and Wilkerson voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The motion carried with a vote of 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes 1 February 1.20/0
Commissioner Barnes asked if there were any additions, changes or deletions to the agenda. Commissioner Wilkerson requested to add an item under Information Items regarding the draft ordinance. Commissioner Crockett made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Stevick seconded the motion. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman, Stevick and Wilkerson voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. Commissioner Barnes asked if there were any changes to the minutes of January 4, 2010. Commissioner Fralick made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Crockett seconded the motion. Commissioners Barnes, Crockett, Fralick, Hartman and Stevick voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Stephens and Wilkerson abstained from voting since they were not present at the meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Barnes asked if there were any citizens to speak during the Citizen Comment Period. There being none, the Citizen Comment Period was closed. Commissioner Barnes noted the Planning Commission would continue with the public hearing for Special Use Permit SU 100006. Commissioner Barnes reviewed the process for the continuance of the public hearing. Mr. Robinson provided a brief overview and noted the additional items being presented. The following items were highlighted: Public hearing began on January 4, 2010. The public hearing was continued to February 1,2010. Additional items presented addressed floodplain information, revised conditions, PSA report and citizen correspondence. The area around the facility is in the flood zone based on draft flood zone map from FEMA; however the structures for the waste water and water treatment facility will not be located in the floodplain. The revised recommended conditions from January 4 are as follows: (1) as written, (2) as amended, (3-7) as written, (8) as amended (9) recommended for removal, (10) as amended, (11-13) as written and 914) as amended. Decision factors to be considered are: Article I - Special Use Permits relation to the Comprehensive Plan and adverse impacts as the Special Use Permit regulations describe and Article IV - Use and Design Standards. Additional citizen correspondence received from Joy G. Payne 1589 Rock Spring Road, Kenneth & Teresa Lynch 1600 Rock Spring Road, Luther Mauney 1619 Red Horse Drive and John & Diana Shoudel 2339 Navigation Point all of Goodview, Va. Additional correspondence included a petition containing approximately 225 signatures of citizens requesting the disapproval of Special Use Permit SU 100006. Commissioner Barnes noted the Public Service Authority had provided their report regarding Special Use Permit SU 100006 and copies are available for the public this evening. Questions/comments from the Commissioners covered the following: Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 1,2010
Fralick - Describe Type E buffer - type II. Mr. Robinson referred to Sec. 30-92-4 which states there are two options: (1) 8-foot screening, 35-foot buffer yard and large deciduous and large evergreens or (2) 50-foot buffer yard, large deciduous trees, large evergreens, intermediate evergreens, and one row of evergreen shrubs. Stevick - Request Mr. Robinson read the cover letter and the letter from the petition received in opposition to the Special Use Permit. Mr. Robinson read the letter into the record. Barnes - Regarding condition # 8 it is unclear what the assessment will produce. Mr. Robinson suggested the applicant could better address this issue. Barnes - Review the by-right development for this project if there is no addition of the utility system. Mr. Robinson referenced Sec. 30-41 (R-l) and Sec. 30-42 (R-2) from the Zoning Ordinance. In both districts lots served by private well and septic require a minimum of 1 acre with 100 feet of road frontage on a publicly owned and maintained street. Approximately 130 units could be developed by right without the proposed system. Stevick - Where are our lines of responsibility with regard to condition # 8? Is there a reason why the wording "a better understanding of the nature" was used over something that would be more specific and determinative? County Attorney Mr. Boggess noted this language is close to the requirements to the Virginia Department of Health and suggested the applicant could better address this question. Mr. Robinson noted the conditions are recommendations. The Commission may accept or modify as they deem appropriate. Commissioner Barnes called individuals signed up to speak. The following citizens spoke against the Special Use Permit application: David Fultz 1148 Red Horse Dr, Gary Gottfried 1522 Red Horse Dr, Luther Mauney 1619 Red Horse Dr, Tim Weitzel 1577 Red Horse Dr, Judy Mauney 1619 Red Horse Dr, Vince Cochran 1751 Rock Spring Rd. all of Goodview, Va. In addition Bob Dooley 140 Charlotte Ln Hardy, Va. spoke against the application. Their comments addressed the following: Is there a sunset on approval of a permit? If they not develop anytime soon would they be required to go back through another review process? Vested right of use does not give the developers the right to get a Special Use Permit. The ordinance requires the developers to demonstrate the minimum adverse impacts. No groundwater assessments have been conducted. Impact of dumping effluent into Smith Mountain Lake and Jumping Run. Developer has not evaluated surface water option. Private utility will not be operated to standards as a public utility. What will happen in case of failure of the system? DEQ stated no other systems discharge into Smith Mountain Lake. The Cedar Rock plant in Forest, Va. received a warning letter in October 2009. The discharge on the monthly average far exceeded the requirements for E. coli bacteria. For over 30 days pathogens were being discharged into the effluent stream. This demonstrates these types of plants are susceptible to permit violations and prolonged violations. Operator of the plant faulted availability of parts indicating it could take two months to get the parts to repair the system. Planning Commission Minutes 3 February I, 2010
PSA reports it has concern about a point-source discharge from the proposed wastewater treatment plant and depletion of groundwater. The applicant has not demonstrated the minimal adverse impact. The law states this must be demonstrated before the Special Use Permit is approved not after. It is not the surrounding property owner's responsibility to demonstrate the minimal adverse impact. It is the responsibility of the applicant. This request violates VA State Code 15.2-2307 as recently interpreted in Virginia Supreme court case Hale vs BZA (February 2009) and should not be granted. Developers need a Special Use Permit because they have no vested rights for this project which proposes a normally unqualified use for the amount of density they desire. They are in violation of at least 3 of Sec. 30-3 (Purpose) of the Zoning Ordinance. The violations are: (1) provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood and other dangers, (2) reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets and (3) facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community. Use of the water system will add an additional 122 homes in an area currently occupied by 22 homes and cause significant congestion on Rock Spring Road and create a safety problem with a narrow gravel one lane road. The congestion issue adds a major fire and public safety dimension. The proposed density of 5 lots per acre is not in harmony with the surrounding lots which are significantly larger. There is no demonstration that this draw on our aquifer would not have a catastrophic impact on the existing wells. PSA states surface water would be a better and more reliable source than the ground water and have a less impact on the surrounding community which currently uses ground water. Wells for the proposed water treatment plan may have to be located to existing wells in the surrounding community. The test they conducted on the wells was done in 2003. This was a record year for rainfall. This had to have an impact on their readings. We have a very fragile aquifer in our area and any use of the groundwater by the developer would greatly impact the ground water resource. Do not approve this Special Use Permit without the hydrogeologic assessment having been conducted and findings reported to the Commission. What happens when my well goes dry? If the County approves the Special Use Permit are they responsible? Is the developer responsible in any way? What are my rights when a large corporation comes in and takes my water or if I am forced to pay a high fee to hook into a public water system that has taken my water? We have 15 lots in our development. A corporation bought two of the lots and plans to put 31 homes on those lots if this Special Use Permit is approved. How can this be a minimal impact on the surrounding community? Bedford County has never approved discharge of effluent into Smith Mountain Lake and this is not the time to set such a precedent. Developer must be held financially accountable for the cleanup of any violation of State standards. When irrigation is not possible, due to equipment malfunction or during winter months, approved drain field located away from the lake, a proven process, should be installed. Planning Commission Minutes 4 February!, 2010
This project should be required to connect to the County's existing facilities for the proposed water and sewer utilities. What would happen if the sewer plant became fully engulfed in water? What would happen to the sewage coming out and mud coming in from the creek? What would happen to the diesel fuel from the generators? What would happen to the power grid? Did anyone from ACS Design go out to this area after the flooding in November 2009 to verify how high the water had gotten? The pond on the golf course is not in the 100 year floodplain. In November 2009 the pond was fully engulfed by the flooding creek. Engineers can make mistakes too. Mr. Philip Groggins 801 Mt. Pleasant Church Rd Fincastle, Va. 24090 spoke in favor of the application. I am the owner of Sycamore Ridge Golf Course. If and when this development takes place it will increase the value of the land of the surrounding properties. I own the existing well referenced by the applicant. I can use this well to irrigate my golf course whenever I want to. We are required to prove enough water is available when we drill a well. To my knowledge there were no well issues after I drilled my well then there were before. The intention of the developer regarding the effluent is most if not all would be used for the irrigation of the gold course. Very little would go into Smith Mountain Lake. The community of Goodview needs to grow or become stagnate. There being no additional speakers Commissioner Barnes closed the Citizen Comment Period of the public hearing. Commissioner Barnes asked Mr. Dan Early from ACS Design for his rebuttal. Mr. Early responded as follows: Correction is necessary for the number of gallons per minute the existing Class 2B well drilled by Mr. Groggins. The correct number of gallons per minute is 49 not 65 as I previously stated on January 4,2010. 75,000 gallons per day discharge into Jumping Run comment: It is our desire to use the effluent for irrigation of the Sycamore Ridge Golf Course. This is our primary goal for effluent. DEQ will require Level 1 standard for the effluent. Jumping Run will be a second component to the discharge permit in the event we cannot irrigate the golf course. Regarding the statement this will set a precedent. It will set a precedent but not to the scale individuals think it may. Mr. Early asked staff to address the question regarding the expiration of the Special Use Permit. Mrs. Zirkle read Section 30-19-4(C) from the Zoning Ordinance which reads o "Any special use permit granted shall be null and void 2 years after approval by the board of supervisors if the use or development authorized by the permit is not commenced to a degree that, in the opinion of the zoning administrator, clearly establishes the intent to utilize the granted special use permit in a period of time deemed reasonable for the type and scope of improvement involved". Suggested condition # 8 - we propose to do a localized hydrogeologic study performed by a hydrogeologist independent of our office. The process can involve historical data gathering of well permit data, fracture tracing and reviewing USGS quad maps looking for geographic fractures or faults. The Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 1,2010
fractures or faults may be in areas where they may find sufficient quantities of ground water. The hydrogeologist will take into consideration the proposed wells to be drilled and their impact in the preparation of the report. The report must be done in conjunction with the Health Department. The hydrologic study would be conducted to identify the best sites for the wells. We are required to prove to the Health Department there is enough ground water available before we can drill our wells. DEQ & Virginia Department of Health have standards we are required to meet. There are a number of business plan models to be prepared and submitted. We are proposing 250 water and sewer connections. By right development would allow 130 individual wells and septic systems. It is common in text that untreated septic systems are considered to be the third largest source of groundwater contamination because it an untreated effluent discharged into the ground. Drilling the wells, consuming the water, treating the water and sending it back to the golf course is being a better steward for the environment. I cannot address if the Special Use Permit is a violation of state code. Surface water intake is preferred. Our first preference would be to have public water and sewer from the PSA. This option is prohibitively expensive. The statement regarding the pump and draw-down test made is incorrect. We will not be pumping and draw-down testing all the wells at the same time. Questions from the Commission to Mr. Early covered the following: Fralick - How will you store the effluent given a hard freeze or a summer of heavy rains? Mr. Early responded through the use of the VPA/VPDES permit. The high level of treatment of the irrigation water exceeds the discharge standard for a point source discharge into Jumping Run. A DEQ permit would allow us to discharge to the golf course and if necessary to Jumping Run. Fralick - Has the permit been approved by DEQ? DEQ requires we secure a local government approval prior to application for their permit. Fralick - Regarding condition # 8, shouldn't this assessment be conducted before anything else? What happens if the SUP is approved and then the problems are discovered during the assessment? Mr. Early suggested the wording in condition # 8 for the report should put forth a definitive statement regarding the availability of ground water and its impacts on the local community. This should be factored into the Virginia Department of Health evaluation of the water system. Wilkerson - Will you irrigate in the winter when the ground is not frozen? Mr. Early only if there is a need for irrigation, otherwise no. Stevick - Will you describe the plans addressing safety concerns, more specifically fire with the water system you are proposing? Mr. Early noted in the preliminary engineering plans we have made provisions so the system can support fire flow and fire protection to the community. There being no additional information to be presented, Commissioner Barnes closed the public hearing and asked for discussion among the Commission members. Discussion covered the following: Crockett - I am in favor of any development around Smith Mountain Lake since the area is designated as a growth area by the County. The problem I have is the spirit and intent of the Ordinance as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan charges us with planned and orderly growth. The applicants Planning Commission Minutes 6 February I, 2010
will benefit from the increased density to allow them to spend a lot of money to do it. I don't think that parallels the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the use by right of an increased density. Fralick -1 am in agreement with Commissioner Crockett. My primary concern is the density issue. I also have concerns regarding water, fire and rescue issues and the view for the adjoining property owners. Wilkerson -1 respect Commissioner Crockett's position and I don't disagree with Commissioner Fralick. There is clearly a higher density being proposed than could be there by right. We can't ignore the ancillary aspects of the proposal. Even though there is close to double density it is actually half the density than could be allowed with water and sewer. The layout of this project is superior to the potential use by right development. Smith Mountain Lake has been intended for heavier development. I think it would be a good project for the area and a benefit to local merchants and benefit the golf course which will benefit the community. It is my opinion that 122 homes on this sewage treatment system will have less environmental impact than half that many homes with conventional drainfields. Crockett - An item which swayed me from supporting the project is three individual landowners who could not justify three individual water systems and three package sewer plants banding together to do this project. They are effectively increasing the density and having an impact on the Zoning Ordinance currently being rewritten. I cannot support setting this precedent. Stevick - It is not clear to me that this project will have not have a minimal adverse impact on the adjoining property and the issue of availability of water. This is a clear and strong standard we have to apply. I am inclined to recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors. Wilkerson - If this were not in an area already zoned for higher uses I could not support it. I support it because it is in an area designated for higher growth. Barnes - The project as presented is a pretty good project. Reference was made to Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan: "Current by-right development opportunities in the residential districts create significant opportunities for sprawl and adversely impact the natural environment and ability to provide services efficiently and effectively". This goes beyond a by right development. "Watershed resources are crucial and protection of land areas that impact the quality of water in the County must be strongly considered in all development or redevelopment opportunities". "Smith Mountain Lake is an important natural resource of the County and development impacts on this resource must be strongly considered". "The protection of quality groundwater in the County is a high priority for residents". New development in the County must be evaluated on full cost impacts of each project along with projected revenue benefits of the development. Based on the level and degree of protection we want and expect for Smith Mountain Lake the risks associated with this project are of concern. I think we need to protect the lake and not take any risks. Commissioner Fralick made a motion to deny Special Use Permit SU100006 with conditions reported by staff. Commissioner Stevick seconded the motion. Commissioners Crockett, Fralick, Stevick and Barnes voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Hartman and Wilkerson voted against the motion. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The motion carried with a vote of 4-2-1. Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 1,2010
Commissioner Barnes requested the staff presentation for a citizen request to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding campground general standards. Jordan Mitchell referred the Commissioners to the staff memorandum in their packets dated January 22, 2010. A citizen has requested an amendment to the general standards for campgrounds in Sec. 30-85-10(A). Section 30-85-10(A) (1) requires a minimum area of 10 contiguous acres for a campground use. The petition is for Sec. 30-85-10A) (1) to be reduced from 10 contiguous acres to 5 contiguous acres. Questions/comments from the Commission covered the following: Stevick - Is there a county wide issue here? This change could impact the whole county policy. Mr. Mitchell noted staff has not conducted any research at this time regarding the request. Staff is looking for direction from the Commission whether or not the change is to be pursued. Stevick - Is the request based on the specific needs of this individual and not county wide? Mr. Mitchell responded yes. Barnes - There are six zoning districts in which campgrounds are allowed as a Special Use Permit. If this change is approved this would affect all six districts. Mr. Mitchell responded yes. Barnes - Why would this not be requested as a variance as opposed to a change to five other districts? Mr. Mitchell responded the petitioner requested this request be presented to the Planning Commission. Barnes - Is there any disadvantage to going to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with this request? Mr. Mitchell responded noting the BZA could approve the request for a one time situation. Barnes - If this were approved what would the impact be on the existing site plan for this five acre parcel? Mr. Mitchell stated the existing site plan would have to be voided in order to pursue another site plan. Barnes - Is there any other future impact you are aware of as a result of making this change? Mr. Mitchell responded no. Staff has done minimal research on the petition. Wilkerson - How will lowering the acreage be negative? Fralick - The ten acre minimum is an arbitrary figure; however it is a number we have determined and do not see the need to change it. Stevick -1 agree with the comments of Commissioner Fralick. Wilkerson - If making this change is for the overall benefit of the economic development of the County and 5 acres is as arbitrary as 10 acres, as long as it is not capricious, what difference does it make? Fralick - The current minimal acreage has served us for a period of time and the request is a temporary measure only. Five other districts would be affected by this change. Wilkerson - If a campground is appropriate in one area at ten acres, why would it not be appropriate as five acres? Mr. Barnes noted this site is immediately viewed as one crosses Hales Ford Bridge into Bedford County. The site sits at a lower level and higher visible. The site is currently zoned Planned Commercial Development. If the site becomes a campground the view coming into Bedford County would be adversely impacted significantly. Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 1,2010
Wilkerson - Is this a Special Use Permit in the PCD district? I hear the Chairman say he is ruling in terms of a Special Use Application rather than in terms of a global zoning change based on an acreage assessment. Is this correct? Barnes - You are partially correct. This is the first step to getting to the Special Use application. I don't think we should impact five other districts in the County for one development. Wilkerson - We should ignore this one development and decide if the change makes sense. This could beneficially affect five other zoning districts rather than negatively. How do you determine if the impact is negative or positive? If ten acres is negative five acres should be less negative. Barnes - Five acres is a small amount for a campground to be economically viable and feasible. This scenario will impact six zoning districts with one request. Stevick - Is the zoning for this property subject to change under the ordinance rewrite? Mrs. Zirkle stated yes. This area may be recommended for General Commercial (GC). Fralick - Suggest we have staff to research how the number of ten acres was derived. Also have staff talk with the petitioner about a Special Use Permit rather than the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Wilkerson - The petitioner cannot apply for a Special Use Permit unless they have a minimum often acres. Mrs. Zirkle - Our Zoning Ordinance came from Roanoke County and the ten acres was not changed. Commissioner Fralick made a motion to deny the petition to amend Section 30-85(A) (1) of the Bedford County Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Stevick seconded the motion. Commissioners Fralick, Barnes and Stevick voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Crockett, Hartman and Wilkerson voted against the motion. Commissioner Stephens abstained from voting. The vote was 3-3-1, therefore the motion to deny the Special Use Permit passed. Commissioner Barnes asked Mrs. Zirkle to address the 2009 Planning Commission Annual Draft Report. Mrs. Zirkle asked for guidance from the Commission on how to prepare the report to the Board of Supervisors for calendar year 2009, which appears to be simply a list of Special Use Permit requests. There is no new information to provide the Board since all work by the Commission related to the Zoning Ordinance update, which the Board will receive a draft of on February 8. The last report provided to the Commission reflected January - June 2009. Your bylaws require you have an annual report. Mr. Boggess noted you are giving them a report when you give them the Draft Ordinance. The Commission agreed to have Commissioner Barnes work with staff to develop the annual report. Commission Barnes asked Commissioner Wilkerson to address his item for the draft ordinance as added to the agenda. Commissioner Wilkerson asked if the Commission could revisit the "Trucking Terminal" as a by right use in Light Manufacturing instead of a Special Use Permit. The Commissioners agreed to change be made to the draft ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 1,2010
Commissioner Barnes thanked the previous Chairman, Commissioner Stevick, for his work during the past year particularly noting his leadership during the work on the draft zoning ordinance. Commissioner Barnes thanked Ms. Hartman for her service on the Commission for the past few years. He also welcomed Mr. Derrick Noell as the new Commissioner representing District 6. Commissioner Barnes welcomed Commissioner Stephens back to the Commission. Commissioner Stevick thanked Mrs. Zirkle for her support during the past year and the support of the Division of Planning. The Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 was cancelled by consensus. There being no other business. Commissioner Hartman made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Wilkerson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by consensus 9:19 pm. Respectfully Submitted: Mary A. Zirkle Chief of Planning Approved by: Lynn Barnes, Chairman Planning Commission Minutes \ Q February I, 2010